FWIW, my 2 cents on this topic. There is some precedent with the LF adding differentiation in the trademark owned by the LF by adding a simple suffix or prefix. Let's take the example of "Xen" v/s "Xen Project".
The trademark "Xen" is owned by Citrix <https://www.citrix.com/content/dam/citrix/en_us/documents/about/citrix-trademark-list.pdf> and Citrix uses the Xen brand for proprietary products even unrelated to Xen (XenApp, XenDesktop, etc). When the Xen Project <https://www.xenproject.org/> was moved under the auspices of the LF, a new trademark "Xen Project" was chosen to differentiate the LF project from Citrix's products <https://www.xenproject.org/trademark-policy.html>. What I'm guessing from the discussion here is that the community's desire is that the LF project not have a drastically different name from the original project name. And from the above example it appears that the LF can trademark names that are only slightly differentiated from the original by the use of a simple suffix such as "Project". Thanks, Aniket Daptari On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Randy Bias <rb...@juniper.net> wrote: > If trademarks were solely about finding something that no one else is > using it would make what is already a tremendously difficult exercise > basically impossible. We would all be making up nonsense words in order to > get something no one else used. > > > > Trademarks infringement is defined as follows (NOLO): > > > > “Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service > mark (or a substantially similar mark) *on competing or related goods and > services*. The success of a lawsuit to stop the infringement turns on > whether the defendant's use causes a likelihood of confusion in the average > consumer.” > > > > The key here is that software-defined-networking (SDN) is sufficiently > different from OCR that there should be little or no confusion. > > > > Is it perfect? No. Was it flagged as a concern by legal? Yes, it was. > Moderate risk. It was also one of the better names that is not completely > abstract. > > > > Tesseract, while widely used, has a small committer base and no foundation > behind it. So legal risk is small. > > > > So, to be clear, the same trademark term can be used multiple times as > long as each usage is clearly distinct. > > > > This is why we have 3 options. If ultimately LF/LFN is unhappy with this > option we will fall back to one of the others. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > --Randy > > > > Vice President, Technology & Strategy, Cloud Software > > Juniper Networks > > +1 (415) 787-2253 <(415)%20787-2253> [Google Voice] > > ASSISTANT: Stephanie Concepcion, sconcepc...@juniper.net > > TWITTER: @randybias > > LINKEDIN: linkedin.com/in/randybias > > > > On 2/13/18, 2:39 AM, "Dev on behalf of Valentine Sinitsyn" < > dev-boun...@lists.opencontrail.org on behalf of > valentine.sinit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > I'm concerned a bit about Tesserax being too close to Tesseract, which > > is a well-known open-source OCR (and also a registered trademark owned > > by someone else). Sounds very similar to Firebird (RDBMS) vs Firebird > > (now Firefox) issue of the early 2000s. > > > > My two cents, > > Valentine > > > > On 13.02.2018 05:52, Gregory Elkinbard wrote: > > > As many of you already know, we are required to change the name of > the > > > project as part of moving to the LF-N. > > > > > > We've started the ball rolling by coming up with a slate of names > that > > > we've preliminarily vetted with trademark counsel. That process has > > > yielded three names that we are reasonably confident can pass the > more > > > stringent trademark test that is presently underway. Now, we need > your help. > > > > > > We've set up a Google Form poll to gather community input on which > of > > > these three names might be most preferred by a plurality of members. > > > Please follow the link belowhttps://goo.gl/forms/ > dj7xIlsXowVez4wI2and > > > complete the poll per the instructions there. Voting is open through > > > 08:00 UTC on Thursday, February 15. We'll announce the winner next > week, > > > pending the aforementioned trademark counsel review. > > > > > > Thanks for participating! > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dev mailing list > > > Dev@lists.opencontrail.org > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists. > opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org&d=DwIGaQ&c= > HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=cvig2YGjcAqtN3D01QkDbCz- > 8RUttsFy-iNDV0QCxFA&m=viu4tlf750ZxeHW3LfSsPcjEbaLuy4-cCw4OgDb6T3s&s=H_ > nS1Bcv0UYoOdGHH-ysSrIullT-M7mtHkL8XkZ8Vzw&e= > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > Dev@lists.opencontrail.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists. > opencontrail.org_mailman_listinfo_dev-5Flists.opencontrail.org&d=DwIGaQ&c= > HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=cvig2YGjcAqtN3D01QkDbCz- > 8RUttsFy-iNDV0QCxFA&m=viu4tlf750ZxeHW3LfSsPcjEbaLuy4-cCw4OgDb6T3s&s=H_ > nS1Bcv0UYoOdGHH-ysSrIullT-M7mtHkL8XkZ8Vzw&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@lists.opencontrail.org > http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.opencontrail.org http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org